equality blooms with spring, pt. II

[martha]

Is this a univeral law? (something that always, or almost always, happens)

It seems to be so, yes.

To answer the second question I didn't quote, I don't know, but it appears to be so.





(See how I answered the question, even a few days after it was asked?)

 

[diamond]

There are a lot more bigots in the real world than here, that's true.

“Showing a bit of respect for cultural values with which you disagree is not a bad thing. Don’t call people bigots and fools just because you disagree with them.’’-Barney Frank.

By definition Barney then is more tolerable than many of his supporters here.




<>

 

[BVS]

By definition Barney is more tolerable than you.




<>

 

[diamond]

He doesn't go around calling people who disagree with him "bigots" like you and a few others have.

So he's more tolerable and to say the least maybe a bit wiser than you?


<>

 

[AEON]

(See how I answered the question, even a few days after it was asked?)

Martha, I thought you would appreciate this part of a sketch from Monty Python:

(Walks down the hall. Opens door.)

Q: WHAT DO YOU WANT?
M: Well, I was told outside that...
Q: Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!
M: What?
Q: Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!
M: Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!!
Q: OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse.
M: Oh, I see, well, that explains it.
Q: Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.
M: Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry.
Q: Not at all.
M: Thank You.
(Under his breath) Stupid git!!

(Walk down the corridor)
M: (Knock)
A: Come in.
M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: I told you once.
M: No you haven't.
A: Yes I have.
M: When?
A: Just now.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't
A: I did!
M: You didn't!
A: I'm telling you I did!
M: You did not!!
A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
M: Oh, just the five minutes.
A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not.
A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
M: No you did not.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't.
A: Did.
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't.
M: It is.
A: Not at all.
M: Now look.
A: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
M: What?
A: That's it. Good morning.
M: I was just getting interested.
A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
M: That was never five minutes!
A: I'm afraid it was.
M: It wasn't.
Pause
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore.
M: What?!
A: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.
M: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!
A: (Hums)
M: Look, this is ridiculous.
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
M: Oh, all right.
(pays money)
A: Thank you.
short pause
M: Well?
A: Well what?
M: That wasn't really five minutes, just now.
A: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.
M: I just paid!
A: No you didn't.
M: I DID!
A: No you didn't.
M: Look, I don't want to argue about that.
A: Well, you didn't pay.
M: Aha. If I didn't pay, why are you arguing? I Got you!
A: No you haven't.
M: Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.
A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
M: Oh I've had enough of this.
A: No you haven't.
M: Oh Shut up.

 

[BVS]

He doesn't go around calling people who disagree with him "bigots" like you and a few others have.

So he's more tolerable and to say the least maybe a bit wiser than you?


<>

First of all when I posted that you didn't have the quotes, so it didn't make sense.

And secondly, he didn't say anything about not calling out true bigots. I haven't called anyone a bigot in this thread, so I'm sure what you are trying to get at by all this "more tolerable, wiser" bullshit.

Maybe you should take a break for awhile, if you haven't noticed you haven't brought much of anything lately except for unwarranted insults. You are much more <> than you are Dave these days.

Just a suggestion

 

[diamond]

true bigots

ha ha in the past you labeled many people as such-that don't agree with you.

 

[BVS]

true bigots

Do you think they exist?

 

[diamond]

Do you think they exist?

I try not to judge people and label people, but only understand from what paradigm they're dealing from-like Barney Frank.

<>

 

[BVS]

I try not to judge people and label people, but only understand from what paradigm they're dealing from-like Barney Frank.

<>

Just a few examples of your non-judgement and not labeling people:

to say the least maybe a bit wiser than you

in the real world, people would eat you alive.

Not after generations of brain washed complicity

That would make you coward

something you wouldn't comprehend nor appreciate.

suggestions brought to you by a very normal and very Gay male.

And this was just from the last week of FYM postings.

 

[diamond]

and I condemned no one when putting all of those quotes in context.



I should mention you did break a forum rules by lifting quotes from other threads and pasting them in this thread-but rules are made to be broken and redefined right?

And Barney Frank seems to be a bit is wiser than you, you need to get over that one.


<>

 

[BVS]

Judging and labeling(which is what you said) doesn't = "condemn".

Wisdom...

 

[phillyfan26]

AEON, while I disagree strongly with your position and think much of your logic doesn't hold up, I do appreciate the general politeness with which your present them and thought you seem to put into them.

Diamond, on the other hand, you're just trying to piss people off by being condescending. Can you try to participate in the discussion by contributing to it instead of trying to sidetrack it with things like "Barney Frank," "I'm being called a bigot," and "buzzwords"?

 

[diamond]

 

[phillyfan26]

Awww. That makes it better.

Throw your diamonds in the sky if you feel the vibe!

 

[Irvine511]

I try not to judge people and label people

priceless!

 

[Irvine511]

 

[diamond]

 

[WCF]

So uh, is there a discussion going on in this thread or are we all just going to keep belittling each other for a couple more pages?

 

[martha]

So uh, is there a discussion going on in this thread or are we all just going to keep belittling each other for a couple more pages?

If this is belittling, can I have some more?

 

[Irvine511]

If this is belittling, can I have some more?

i don't feel belittled at all ... quite the opposite ...

 

[martha]

heh heh...

 

[AEON]

and we get all these contortions from you two, and very little substance -- you still have not answered the question about what it is that straights can do that gays cannot

You’ve admitted a difference between men and women, at least at the biological level. You identified a male is a male by virtue of having a penis, and a female is a female by virtue of having a vagina. Since you have identified biological differences between a male and a female – you have at the same time identified a biological difference between couples comprised of male/ female vs. male/male vs. female/female. At this point, there is not assumption of “best” or “better” – just different (at least biologically). So, the question of “what is the difference” is at least partially answered.

Terms like “best” and “better” in this case, are at their core – value judgments. When discussing these “couples” as heterosexual vs. homosexual – part of the discussion is trying to determine which has more “value” to society, or if it is even possible that one could have more value than the other couple. Furthermore, if one is demonstrated to have more value – should society encourage that one, while discouraging the other?

I agree that it would be impossible for heterosexual couples to have more value to society if there is no actual difference between them and homosexual couples. Yet, there is a difference, a biological difference - as pointed out above. And this is not an insignificant difference (like hair color, eye color, skin color), in strictly biological terms, as it turns out that natural reproduction can be the result of the male/female union – and not the other unions. So, if everything else is the same between the heterosexual couples and homosexual couples – the one key biological difference is that continuation of the species is naturally possible through one union, and not the other. So, before modern science made it possible for non-heterosexual partners to conceive and bear children – heterosexuality was the only possible way for the species to survive. Before modern science, it seems logical that heterosexuality had more “biological value” to human beings by means of the ability to continue life. Will you concede this point?

 

[phillyfan26]

But even then, before modern science, were couples required to have children to marry?

I think you know the answer.

 

[AEON]

But even then, before modern science, were couples required to have children to marry?

I think you know the answer.

I was simply addressing the question "what is different" between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples on a purely biological level - and whether or not heterosexual unions had more biological value than homosexual unions to the species before modern science.

 

[BoMac]

Yet, there is a difference, a biological difference - as pointed out above. And this is not an insignificant difference (like hair color, eye color, skin color), in strictly biological terms, as it turns out that natural reproduction can be the result of the male/female union – and not the other unions. So, if everything else is the same between the heterosexual couples and homosexual couples – the one key biological difference is that continuation of the species is naturally possible through one union, and not the other. So, before modern science made it possible for non-heterosexual partners to conceive and bear children – heterosexuality was the only possible way for the species to survive. Before modern science, it seems logical that heterosexuality had more “biological value” to human beings by means of the ability to continue life. Will you concede this point?

I have read you use the reproductive argument in the last little while, the "continuation of the species", if you will.

How will allowing gay marriage for 5% of the population affect that, exactly?

The only thing I can think of, is that you think that homosexuality is a choice rather than genetic, and that by allowing gay marriage it will do two things: encourage other adults to become homosexual; and encourage children who come from same gender relationships to think homosexuality is "normal" and encourage them to engage in the homosexual "lifestyle".

 

[Irvine511]

Y When discussing these “couples” as heterosexual vs. homosexual – part of the discussion is trying to determine which has more “value” to society, or if it is even possible that one could have more value than the other couple. Furthermore, if one is demonstrated to have more value – should society encourage that one, while discouraging the other?

I agree that it would be impossible for heterosexual couples to have more value to society if there is no actual difference between them and homosexual couples. Yet, there is a difference, a biological difference - as pointed out above. And this is not an insignificant difference (like hair color, eye color, skin color), in strictly biological terms, as it turns out that natural reproduction can be the result of the male/female union – and not the other unions.

so now you're predicating marriage upon having offspring that is 50% each of the partners?

so all those adopted kids don't count? those couples who choose to remain childless? those couples who marry much later in life beyond their years of fertility?

gay people can have children that are biologically related to one partner, why is that child not entitled to have his parents married?

and in a world where we're often bemoaning the amount of children who need to be adopted, isn't there a huge "value" in protecting a couple who potentially could adopt these excess children? isn't there a "value" in providing stability for gay people who, and i haven't even brought this up yet, might actually benefit tremendously from having structure, meaning, and purpose to their romantic lives the way that straight people have structure, meaning, and purpose and a goal?

So, before modern science made it possible for non-heterosexual partners to conceive and bear children – heterosexuality was the only possible way for the species to survive. Before modern science, it seems logical that heterosexuality had more “biological value” to human beings by means of the ability to continue life. Will you concede this point?

i think i've stated this point before, and i think the most important point is that we understand marriage to be a far more complex thing than a baby making factor. in fact, AEON, you've outlined a good argument for polygamy if we're going to assign "value" to the ability of people to continue life. one man can impregnate many women at once, so we're all better off as a species if one man keeps his 5 wives pregnant. further, we better do away with age-of-consent laws, because a woman only has a limited time to produce children, and risk of birth defects go up once she turns 35. so better get her breeding the day after she has her first period so that we can maximize her reproductive potential.

i think we'd both agree that this is all absurd, and that people are more complex than their ability to reproduce, and that's why marriage is far more complex.

i think that the idea behind marriage is absolutely tied to reproduction, but more as a way of making a man stay and provide for a woman with a child. it has more to do with civilizing heterosexual men than it's about sanctifying the actual heterosexual union that produces a child.

as our understanding of marriage has evolved, so should the institution evolve.

i'll point back to that Thomas Jefferson quote i posted last sunday:

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the same coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

 

[Vincent Vega]

Furthermore, if one is demonstrated to have more value – should society encourage that one, while discouraging the other?

I think that sentence speaks to the apparent view that both homosexuality and heterosexuality are a choice. For, if both weren't a choice, society, or the government, could never encourage or discourage either one. Except for, maybe, making homosexuals hide their true identity and agree into heterosexual relationships. Which, very sadly, is the case in reality all too often.

 

[Diemen]

If we're to follow the "continuation of th species" logic, then infertile couples should also not be allowed to marry, since they cannot biologically reproduce.

Nevermind the fact that your argument contains it's own rebuttal (modern science), ignores reality (child rearing is not a requirement of marriage and there are many more things in marriage that are beneficial to society than merely procreation) and again dodges the real question.

 

[AEON]

How will allowing gay marriage for 5% of the population affect that, exactly?

The only thing I can think of, is that you think that homosexuality is a choice rather than genetic, and that by allowing gay marriage it will do two things: encourage other adults to become homosexual; and encourage children who come from same gender relationships to think homosexuality is "normal" and encourage them to engage in the homosexual "lifestyle".

Actually, I wasn't addressing gay marriage directly in this above post – only addressing the question of “difference” and raising the possibility that this difference had more biological value before modern science since it was critical to the survival of the species.